Delhi High Court
Punjab National Bank vs S.K.Finance Corporation on 18 July, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.546/2018
% 18th July, 2018
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi,
Advocate.
versus
S.K.FINANCE CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No.27948/2018 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions
CM stands disposed of.
RFA 546/2018 & CM No. 27947/2018 (stay)
1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit
impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 17.3.2018 by which
the trial court has decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits
filed by the respondent/plaintiff/landlord with respect to the property
being Flat No.12-C, situated at 1 Atma Ram building, Tolstoy Marg,
New Delhi admeasuring 500 sq. feet. It may be noted that
appellant/defendant is only pressing the relief with respect to the claim
for reducing the mesne profits granted by the trial court inasmuch as
appellant/defendant/tenant has already handed over possession of the
suit property to the respondent/plaintiff.
2. The relevant period for grant of the mesne profits is from
6.5.2007 till handing over of possession, and which possession is said
to have been handed over on 30.5.2018. It may be noted that the
admitted rate of rent between the parties at the time of termination of
tenancy being the rent payable and maintenance charges was a total
sum of Rs.3904/-. On the admitted rent trial court has granted
increase around 20% every three year as stated below.
"@Rs.75/- per sq. feet: 06.05.2007 till 05.05.2010
@ Rs.90/- per sq. feet: 06.05.2010 till 05.05.2013,
@ Rs. 110/- per sq. feet from 06.05.2013 till 05.05.2016
@ Rs.135/- per sq. feet from 06.05.2016 till the date of
handing of possession."
3. For granting the mesne profits trial court has referred to
various judgments of this Court that Court should take judicial notice
of increase of rent. One such judgment is of a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of S. Kumar Vs. G.R.Kathpalia 1999 (1) RCR 431;
1999 RLR 114. I have also referred to this judgment in S. Kumar's
case (supra) and held in the case of M.C. Aggarwal vs. M/s Shahra
India & Ors. 2011 (183) DLT 105 that unless evidence is led to the
contrary, courts would be justified in granting an annual increase of
15% compounded every year. If the ratio of M.C. Aggarwal (supra)
would have been applied the respondent/landlord would have been
granted 15% cumulative increase every year i.e a total of more than
45% after 3 years whereas in the present case at best around 20%
increase has been granted every three years. Therefore, in fact the trial
court has been more than liberal in favour of the appellant/defendant
and against the respondent/plaintiff. The relevant paragraph of the
judgment in M.C. Aggarwal (supra) is para 8 and this para reads as
under:-
"8. What is now therefore to be determined is that what
should be the mesne profits which should be awarded to the
landlord in the absence of any evidence having been led by the
landlord with respect to the rents prevalent in the area. Though it
has not been argued on behalf of the landlord, I would like to give
benefit to landlord of various precedents of this Court and the
Supreme Court which take judicial notice of increase of rent in the
urban areas by applying the provisions of Sections 114 and 57 of
the Evidence Act, 1872. In my opinion, considering that the
premises are situated in one of the most centrally located
commercial localities of Delhi, situated in Connaught Place, an
increase of 15% every year should be awarded (and nothing has
otherwise been shown to me for the increase to be lesser) during
the period for which the tenants have over stayed in the tenanted
premises. Putting it differently, for the first year of illegal
occupation, the tenant will pay 15% increased rent over the
contractual rent. For the second year of illegal occupation, 15%
increase will be over the original contractual rent plus the
additional 15%. It will be accordingly for all subsequent years of
the illegal occupation till the premises were vacated on 3.4.2005. I
rely upon and refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of S. Kumar Vs. G.R. Kathpalia 1999 RLR 114, and in
which case the Division Bench has given benefit to the landlord
and has taken judicial notice of increase in rent, and has
accordingly allowed mesne profits at a rate higher than the
contractual rate of rent."
4. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in
the appeal. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
JULY 18, 2018/ib
